I recalled from my pregnancies dutifully drinking 50 cc of pure glucose, or grape sugar guck, the mere thought of which had me paying homage to the nearest toilet. Even back then I recall thinking, “So I (and my baby) am / are ingesting how much sugar? In order to…what? Obtain some number that tells me whether I can or cannot have sugar for the rest of my pregnancy?”
Not only does it seem simpler and less costly for everyone involved to simply advise moms whose babies are large for gestational age to cut back on or cut out sugar from Week 28, but just as I wonder about Gardasil and finding out the gender from an amnio*, I have to ask: Is it necessary? I went looking, and sure enough, found evidence that indeed, it’s not. In addition, it says here:
“Pregnancy makes extra demands on insulin production; to minimize the pressure, pregnant women should eat a diet low in simple sugars, high in complex carbohydrates and fiber, and moderate in fat. Moderate, regular exercise also improves glucose tolerance.”
Sounds reasonable, right? So why do we insist on “fiddling with the works”, especially in the majority of cases wherein no particular concern is indicated?
Once again, my instincts were on target: We simply have a case of a supposed condition whose existence is based on errant information, unnecessary tests for which have been “adopted into the medical canon”. Once again, we have the medical community playing on patients’ fears so that practitioners can protect themselves from blame.
What would be the problem with patients signing an Informed Consent Waiver on tests that they decide they don’t want? I’d sooner have done that than drunk enough liquid sugar to keep my baby bouncing off the walls until first grade.
* Even amnio, with which I'm also uncomfortable, at least supposedly gives us information that is unavailable otherwise. Not the case with GB testing.